This is what I've been talking about...

Doc

I have been saying for years that ammo companies have reduced the power levels in some calibers of handgun ammo and the publishers of the re;loading manuals have also reduced their loads. Tonight I was reloading some 38 Specials and I noticed the differences in the various manuals.

These are the top loads for the 38 using a 125 JHP bullet and Unique powder. All from various volumes of the Speer manual.

1970 Vol. 8 - 7.5 grains

1974 Vol. 9 - 5.9 grains

1987 Vol. 11 - 5.8 grains

1998 Vol. 13 - 5.6 grains

The biggest drop occurs between Vol. 8 and Vol. 9, from 7.5 to 5.9. That's a huge reduction. Then it continues to drop until the 1998 publication which is the last one I have on hand. I don't know what the most recent Speer manual lists as a top load. Might be be down to 4 grains by now.

I have used that 7.5 load and it barks but seems OK in the guns I tried it in. I generally load 7 grains with a 125 for my carry 38s and this is stout but within reason. This is the max load from my 1977 Sierra manual.

That 5.6 as maximum is a joke. That's barely a gallery load. By the way, the 5.9 and 5.6 loads are designated as +P. What a hoot! The 7.5 load required no special warning but these pipsqueaks apparently should concern us.

bigoutside

Why do you think that is happening?

sarge_3ad

Kinda like candy bars ain't it?

gesshots

It's to be expected in this litigious society!

Any manufacturer has to protect itself against morons.

I have noticed this trend in reloading data too.

Their reasoning is consistent - Recipes have to be "safe" in every firearm; regardless of age or condition. [;)]

fordsix

the nitro content of powders has changed over the years

lksmith03

quote:Originally posted by Doc
I have been saying for years that ammo companies have reduced the power levels in some calibers of handgun ammo and the publishers of the re;loading manuals have also reduced their loads. Tonight I was reloading some 38 Specials and I noticed the differences in the various manuals.

These are the top loads for the 38 using a 125 JHP bullet and Unique powder. All from various volumes of the Speer manual.

1970 Vol. 8 - 7.5 grains

1974 Vol. 9 - 5.9 grains

1987 Vol. 11 - 5.8 grains

1998 Vol. 13 - 5.6 grains

The biggest drop occurs between Vol. 8 and Vol. 9, from 7.5 to 5.9. That's a huge reduction. Then it continues to drop until the 1998 publication which is the last one I have on hand. I don't know what the most recent Speer manual lists as a top load. Might be be down to 4 grains by now.

I have used that 7.5 load and it barks but seems OK in the guns I tried it in. I generally load 7 grains with a 125 for my carry 38s and this is stout but within reason. This is the max load from my 1977 Sierra manual.

That 5.6 as maximum is a joke. That's barely a gallery load. By the way, the 5.9 and 5.6 loads are designated as +P. What a hoot! The 7.5 load required no special warning but these pipsqueaks apparently should concern us.




I see it on some calibers but not others. the load I used for my 30-06 150gr was 52.0 gr of IMR 4064 the Max in my Lyman book (2003) was 53.0the Hodgdon site says max load is 51.0
the pistol calibers is where the largest difference is tho

MaxOHMS

So, what is "+P"?

No wonder my barrel is rusting.

1911a1-fan

I ran some factory .38 special through my crono

Most where way under powered, ww 130 grain fmj was 800fps = 104 power factor

My personal loads for compitition are 158 grain rnl with 3.4 grains of clays, making average of 828 fps = 130 pf


To give a contrast Winchester white box 9mm fmj 124 fmj is 141 pf

spasmcreek

the liability issue will be resolved when reloaded to specs the bullet slides out of the end of the barrel and falls to the floor...new sammi specs for civilins, no doubt

machine gun moran

The Speer Reloading Manual #8, original printing, was famous for bearing un-pressure tested (and wildly overpressure) handun data. Some of the .38 Special and .357 Mag 'suggested starting loads' that were listed, were found to be almost 20,000 pressure units over industry proof pressure. In the second printing of the No. 8 Manual, Speer dropped some of their listings with SR4756 altogether, which was apparently their knee-jerk to never having pressure-tested the loads to begin with.

Google 'Speer Reloading Manual No. 8', there is a lot of detailed information there regarding the * load listings.

Doc

The info I see specifically refers to another powder. I was just looking at Unique. The Speer #8 lists 7.5 and a couple years later the Sierra Manual shows 7 so not a really huge difference suggesting the Speer is wildly too high. Like I said, I have used the 7.5 load and while it is stout, nothing bad happened.

Most top 38 Special loads are now limited to 16,5000 PSI and that's a joke. The original 1899 limit was 21,500. But they must take into account the crappy imported guns that turn up.

BTW- Factory +P runs 18,500 - 20,000 depending on who you ask (and I don't believe the 20,000 figure). Still well below maximum allowable.

He Dog

The question would be, has the powder itself changed over those years, assuming Unique powder throughout. If the nitro level has changed that may be reflected. If the early loads were indeed wild guesses, that to would be reflected.

hillbille

that time frame between vol 8 and 9, wouldn't have been when unique brand changed from hercules to hodkins was it???? I know there is a slight difference in unique powders from the two manufacturers.

Doc

There is usually a suggestion that it was the powder changing formulas necessitating the change in loading data, but I don't think the powder changes every few years. Also, I have used powder from the early 1970s alongside newer stuff and it looks the same, and when loaded to the same specs, performs exactly the same. I see no difference between older and newer Unique.

Big Sky Redneck

Correct me if I am wrong but as a long time reloader I am assuming that a change in the powder is a different powder.

If IMR 4350 changes and the burn rate changes it is no longer IMR 4350. Same with Unique powder, if you change the composition of the powder (nitro levels) it is no longer Unique powder. Look at the 4350 SC vs 4350 LC, two totally different powders and are marketed as such. If such a change was to take place by modifying the powders to where burn rates change that wouild open up a whole new liability because if you make 4350 hotter than 4350 from last year changing the pressures then it must be marketed as such and that would change the 4350 designator. I have some powders that are 15 years old, is it no longer safe to use these because the composition has changed over the years? I don't see it.

Doc

Some guys have said that powder formula changes and retains the same number. I sort of doubt they would do that because of liability if someone uses data that is no longer right given the new formula. I think Unique is the same now as it was in 1970. And as I said that is my experience when using older and newer samples... I get the same velocities regardless so it doesn't seem there is any difference.

hillbille

Doc it used to be Hercules, Unique. Now it is being made by hodkins, I don't know if hodkins bought out hercules or if they were the same, I have one old square metal can of unique that has the hercules name, the newer plastic cans are hodkins, I know loading data for shotgun shells show up to a 2grain difference in recepies. I don't load a lot of pistol but I know 2 grains ia a big difference even for a shotshell. As I said before I don't know when this happened or if this could be making a difference, But there is a difference in load data between the two uniques, for shotshells.

Mr. Perfect

quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
Correct me if I am wrong but as a long time reloader I am assuming that a change in the powder is a different powder.

If IMR 4350 changes and the burn rate changes it is no longer IMR 4350. Same with Unique powder, if you change the composition of the powder (nitro levels) it is no longer Unique powder. Look at the 4350 SC vs 4350 LC, two totally different powders and are marketed as such. If such a change was to take place by modifying the powders to where burn rates change that wouild open up a whole new liability because if you make 4350 hotter than 4350 from last year changing the pressures then it must be marketed as such and that would change the 4350 designator. I have some powders that are 15 years old, is it no longer safe to use these because the composition has changed over the years? I don't see it.
Improved methods of testing and measurement could account for the decrease even if the powder remains the same formula.

Doc

I believe the manual changed and not the powder. There would be some sort of warning on the label if it was substantially different from earlier versions and also using the same name for a different powder would open the company to all sorts of lawsuits. Unique by one company is the same as Unique from the other company as far as I can tell.